I would like to invite comment on a proposed House Rule. The rule has been proposed after a game in which the British and German forces built over 400 IPCs worth of naval units in Yugoslav and Egyptian Industrial Complexes including 5 Aircraft Carriers and 8 Battleships. The proposed rule is as follows:

1: Capital ships may only be placed at Major Industrial Complexes.

The proposed rule seeks to better balance the required abstraction of a casual war game, such as Axis and Allies, with the authentic recreation of war material production.

This rule is specifically targeting German, British, and ANZAC construction of Aircraft Carriers and Battleships at their captured, hastily built, or extremely new, respectively, Minor Industrial Complexes. The two most expensive and sizable ships in the war were not easy to reliably manufacture which is reflected in the relatively few shipyards which produced them in reality.

We don’t play tournament rules and use Alpha +3. We already have 1 House Rule in place using the Researcher rule from the 50th Anniversary edition.

I would appreciate your considered feedback.

Have to agree that this isn’t a smart play, you’re not capping out your existing industrial capacity, adding more is a loss of throughput.

For unintended concequences it would be hilarious if the Germans take it early and then, while they’re pushing Moscow, lose it to the Brits. However, when your strategy depends on your opponent being an idiot, you don’t have a strategy, you have a dream.

@andrewaagamer 1-2, you killed him and got permanent $5 bonus, 3-5 you failed nothing happens, 6 you failed and you have to remove 2 German Infantry and 2 German Armor.

@squirecam timing was everything. You could maximize your income by trying turn one but you also had to get Poland and France turn 1 so losing a 1/4 of your army would be problematic. You also had to make the attempt during the purchase units phase of the turn.

If it helps, remember this is an extremely abstracted war game. It doesn’t make any less sense that an army taking the same amount of time to travel from Paris to Berlin as Calcutta to Kunming or New York to San Francisco.

However, to everyone confident that this is completely fine and will never change, remember that Wall 'o Transports was canon for 2 decades before that garbage was finally addressed.

There is a question in the Q&A that approaches this but didn’t quite address my question. If US attacks SZ6 defended by 2 Destroyers and 1 Sub with 1 Destroyer, 4 planes (of any description) and 1 transport to amphibious, obviously they cannot ignore the subs because there are surface warships present. My question is that if kamikaze attacks succeed on the US destroyer,

1. As the rules state “the ship will not participate in the subsequent battle” have the planes lost the ability to hit the sub?
2. As this battle cannot be canceled at this point, does the sub get to roll in the first combat round since there is a transport present in the sea zone even if it can’t hit the attacking planes?

Thanks!

@taamvan Thank you for your response as it beautifully sums up the disconnect surrounding this issue. While I certainly can’t speak for anyone else, the arguments that I have advanced here and elsewhere, as well as many of the arguments I have seen over the years pertaining to the overly simplified retreat rule are not based in any way on their reasonableness or their lack thereof from a game balance perspective.

Axis & Allies is a re-creation of an event from our very recent history. It’s not Dune, it’s not Root, it’s not Twilight Imperium. It’s not just another board game that simply needs to be fun, interesting, and deep. Its appeal is that it is simultaneously extremely accessible and attempts to remain true to the spirit of accurately depicting the realities of the Second World War.

Ultimately, over the past 43 years, the game has changed multiple times resulting in a consistent increase of complexity while still remaining one of the most accessible wargames you’ll find. This is a damned challenging tightrope to walk and Larry Harris indeed deserves our gratitude and recognition.

This does not mean, however, that we are not to point out rules that need changing. From the perspective of a game designer one of the most reliable indications that a rule needs to be altered, changed, or tweaked is when it creates extremely non-intuitive gameplay and motivations. In an historical game it also needs to be considered if it is creating clearly anti-historical gameplay situations.

Yes, there are other facets of the game that would certainly fall under these umbrellas, and yes, this is a rule that has been part of the game for years and is a part of making the game relatively simple. But if we can keep track of the movement remaining on planes coming from 6 different territories to the same battle, we can keep track of which units came from which land territories.

@taamvan At least I now understand our fundamental difference. To me, original should be a concise 1 day game, Revised maybe 1 day. Global '40 should be a multi-week 20-30 hour game with its early starting position and rich ruleset regarding individual powers, national advantages, and neutral countries.

I personally prefer Columbus in June but I do hope you enjoy Atlanta.

@taamvan At least I now understand our fundamental difference. To me, original should be a concise 1 day game, Revised maybe 1 day. Global '40 should be a multi-week 20-30 hour game with its early starting position and rich ruleset regarding individual powers, national advantages, and neutral countries.

I personally prefer Columbus in June but I do hope you enjoy Atlanta.

@taamvan Thank you for your response as it beautifully sums up the disconnect surrounding this issue. While I certainly can’t speak for anyone else, the arguments that I have advanced here and elsewhere, as well as many of the arguments I have seen over the years pertaining to the overly simplified retreat rule are not based in any way on their reasonableness or their lack thereof from a game balance perspective.

Axis & Allies is a re-creation of an event from our very recent history. It’s not Dune, it’s not Root, it’s not Twilight Imperium. It’s not just another board game that simply needs to be fun, interesting, and deep. Its appeal is that it is simultaneously extremely accessible and attempts to remain true to the spirit of accurately depicting the realities of the Second World War.

Ultimately, over the past 43 years, the game has changed multiple times resulting in a consistent increase of complexity while still remaining one of the most accessible wargames you’ll find. This is a damned challenging tightrope to walk and Larry Harris indeed deserves our gratitude and recognition.

This does not mean, however, that we are not to point out rules that need changing. From the perspective of a game designer one of the most reliable indications that a rule needs to be altered, changed, or tweaked is when it creates extremely non-intuitive gameplay and motivations. In an historical game it also needs to be considered if it is creating clearly anti-historical gameplay situations.

Yes, there are other facets of the game that would certainly fall under these umbrellas, and yes, this is a rule that has been part of the game for years and is a part of making the game relatively simple. But if we can keep track of the movement remaining on planes coming from 6 different territories to the same battle, we can keep track of which units came from which land territories.

@superbattleshipyamato I respect your difference of opinion. While I do disagree with you, in that i feel this is a problem in the game, I do concur that it is not of the same severity as several other opportunities the game has experienced and continues to experience.

@arthur-bomber-harris The game is improved by people providing constructive criticism, as it was when transports were made defenseless, battleships stopped by sunk by the same amount of damage as a submarine or destroyer, and addressing the vast distances of Siberia and China dwarf those of Europe.

As I’m not addressing any kind of house rule, simply the flawed logic behind the existing rule in the game, this would seem to be the correct place to discuss it by default. Unfortunately, there is no separate “review” section of the forums to have this discussion.

@superbattleshipyamato when 2 armies approach an opponent from opposite directions, engage in battle, and then retreat, the opponent does not open his lines to allow one army to join the other in retreating in one direction

@burgh-gamer-67 the logic holds, they march forward, then they retreat back, the problem that people have with this abstraction is that the units “retreat” forward

The Hard AI will execute specific strategies well, but has some interesting blind spots. Countering Middle Earth it amassed a German force of almost 80 at Stalingrad, leaving Russia surrounded but holding on in Moscow and declared war on the neutrals to come through Turkey. However after the British broke through in the Balkans, rather than pull that force back to protect the homeland in push into the Middle Eastern factories it just continued to use them to hold the Caucasus/Stalingrad bonuses until they were eventually surrounded and wiped out by the Russian stack they allowed to build up. Seems like the Hard AI may have a little too much value allocated to the National Objectives.

@andrewaagamer 2 clarifications:

1. The Rom IC is this Germany/Italy player’s SOP, the only variance is between $12/$30, regardless of whether he’s going G1 or G2. So that’s going to happen before I take any action.

2. I see the confusion. My intent is not to send the 6 new tanks to Asia, they would remain in Europe.

I’ve been considering an R1 6 tank buy, starting 2 tanks and 2 mechs moving east, and flying the Russian airforce out to Siberia as part of a KJF strategy. R2 or R3 assault on Manchuria and sending the 4 mobile units into China to prop China in the north.

My opponents have typically shown an extreme reluctance to use Calcutta Crush because they have been punished multiple times for failing to adequately defend the home islands so I anticipate J2 to be the absolute earliest they’ll go. However the aggressive Soviet stance seems dangerous assuming a G2 and Italian Med. The small factory in Romania G1is almost a guarantee. I anticipate no Sealion threat due to their conservative nature therefore Middle Earth is almost mandated. I am also conservative and will not be doing Taranto, opting instead to vacate the Med after strafing the Tobruk DD/Trn and reinforce the Indian Ocean.

Any suggested tweaks to the R1 buy?

Has anyone tried playing G40 with the National Advantages from Revised? In Revised they always seemed wildly imbalanced but I think some of the G40 rule changes may have helped somewhat.

Also, if anyone has, how did you address the National Advantages potentially obviated by G40 rules changes (Mongolian pact, Radar tech, Kamikaze rule, China)